I actually think that we should try and use WSDL interfaces, but we need to
check that it does what we need it to do. The specific problem is the
requirement for the WSDL interface to accept abstract message types, for
example an order, without specifying exactly which format of an order it
will accept as they can vary.
I suppose that really I need to do more work myself looking at the latest
WSDL specs on this.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 2:52 AM
To: Steve Ross-Talbot
Cc: Jean-Jacques Dubray; 'Burdett, David'; Daniel_Austin@grainger.com;
public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: Re: Straw-man Proposal for our mission statement
Steve Ross-Talbot wrote:
>
> I have made this WSDL non-WSDL a topic for discussion at the call
> later today.
> I'd like to get a summary of the views expressed so far ... any
> volunteers?
>
> Cheers
>
> Steve T
Here's a list of what I've heard so far. I've tried my best to express
the view as briefly and broadly as possible, so people who support one
or more views can elaborate more. Listed from least to most likely to
focuse solely on WSDL:
1. We need to define choreographies in abstract terms. Use of WSDL is an
implementation detail.
2. We need to define abstract choreographies with bindings to multiple
technologies, including but not limited to WSDL.
3. Using WSDL prevents us from supporting other specifications that
address RM, security, transactions, etc.
4. You can't write a good choreography language using WSDL, but you can
bind a good choreography to WSDL.
5. The interesting capabilities are already supported by WSDL and
specifications that extend WSDL.
6. Being a W3C WG implies ...
Feel free to add, remove, expand, donate 2 cents, etc ...
I want to add one request for clarification. I did that a few times
before, I hope a few people would be willing to take on it this time.
WSDL encapsulates two layers within the same specification that
personally I would have liked to see written as two different parts of
the same specification for better clarity (similar to the two parts in
XSDL and SOAP).
One layer deals with abstract service types as defined by their
interface implying what the service looks like but not any particular
service. The other layer deals with actual services as defined by their
end-points, protocol binding and the interface they support.
Someone may say "I don't like the specification to refer to WSDL
services" and someone else may say "I like the specification to refer to
WSDL interfaces". These two points of view are not contradictory in any
way. However they do become contradictory if we don't specify what part
of WSDL we refer to.
So if anyone has an opinion for or against WSDL, can you please clarify
whether you refer to the WSDL services, WSDL interfaces or WSDL whole. I
think that alone would bring a bit more agreement into the discussion.
arkin